Mediaboss Marketing

House Democrats are pushing back against GOP attempts to loosen the nations gun laws.

Republican proposals to allow law-abiding gun owners to carry their firearms out of state and allow hunters to use sound suppressors are terribly alarming, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said Tuesday at a press conference.

Democrats are rallying to defeat these efforts on Capitol Hill. The legislation is almost certain to pass in the House, but they might stand a chance in the Senate, where Democrats can block a vote on the bills.

Now you have a pro-NRA president in Donald TrumpDonald TrumpPavlich: GOP gets green light on cuts Moulitsas: Owning Trumps failures Overnight Healthcare: GOP looks for ObamaCare path as right lashes out MORE, and sales are way down, profits are way down, Beyer added. They need a way to build back their profits. How do you do it? You create a brand new revenue stream to sell silencers, you make sure you can carry a concealed weapon everywhere. This is all about building up gun profitability.

This comes one day after Sen. John CornynJohn CornynOvernight Cybersecurity: Trump's intel pick faces Senate | House panel to mark up cyber standards bill DNI confirmation offers preview of surveillance debate Schumer: Trump speech 'less important' that past presidents' addresses MORE (R-Texas) introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which allows people who are legally permitted to own a gun in one state to carry that firearm in another state.

Proponents say it will allow law-abiding gun owners to travel across state lines with their firearms without being arrested. But critics point out that gun owners from states with weaker laws could pose a risk to people in other states.

Thompson called the bill an effort to dumb down the process for getting a concealed carry permit.

Republicans are also backing the Hearing Protection Act, which would allow gun owners to use sound suppressors to reduce the noise of their firearms. Proponents say it will protect the hearing of hunters, but critics argue these devices are paramount to silencers and could be exploited by criminals.

Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.) called it a gift to the gun lobby.

This is not an attack on the Second Amendment of the United States, said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). Thats bull.

Thompson, the chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, also raised concerns about the Republican effort to roll back an Obama-era regulation that blocked certain disability recipients who are mentally ill from owning guns.

It was very said to learn that the first thing the new Republican majority did when they got here was make it easier for people who are mentally ill to have firearms, Thompson said.

Read the original here:
House Dems warn of 'terribly alarming' Republican gun bills - The Hill

NRA-ILA Executive Vice President Chris Cox took to the CPAC stage to introduce Vice President Mike Pence. Before Pence came on stage, Cox recapped the last year and what it meant for gun owners across the nation.

Let me ask you a question. How many of you came to CPAC last year? Thats great. Now how many of you remember what happened six days before CPAC started last year. It was February 16th and American freedom suffered a devastating loss when Justice Scalia unexpectedly passed away. That day, the stakes of the 2016 elections fundamentally changed. This was no longer a fight for the next four years. This was going to be a fight for the next 40 years.

As you all remember, the Republican primary was still, lets just say, interesting. But we knew Hillary Clinton was either going to win or steal the Democratic nomination. And we knew exactly what Hillarys Supreme Court would look like. For those of us who support the Second Amendment, we knew our gun rights would be gone. Our right to keep and bear arms survived the Supreme Court by just one vote and he had just passed away. Think about that. The court said we have the right to keep a gun in our homes to protect ourselves if God forbid some criminal breaks in and wants to murder us. Thats it. Thats all they said. But Hillarys view? She said it was a terrible decision, that the Supreme Court was wrong on the Second Amendment.

Watch Chris Coxs full remarks below:

Author's Bio: Beth Baumann

See the article here:
Chris Cox: The Second Amendment Was Under Attack During the 2016 Elections - Bearing Arms

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In other words, in New Hampshire the Second Amendment is your concealed carry permit.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The billSenate Bill 12was sponsored by state Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley (R), who sought to make laws governing concealed carry congruent with laws governing open carry. It was already legal to openly carry a handgun without a permit for self-defense in New Hampshire, and Bradley saw no reason why concealing the handgun should suddenly require a citizen to get a permit from the government.

The Washington Postquoted Bradley saying, We have historically allowed people to openly carry a pistol. I dont see why you have to get a second permit if youre a law-abiding citizen and legally entitled to own a gun.

Governor Sununu pledged to sign the bill if it reached his desk, and after signing it Wednesday he tweeted that he was proud to have fulfilled a commitmentto residents of New Hampshire:

According to Fox News, Sununu described SB 12 as common-sense legislation. He added, This is about making sure that our laws on our books are keeping people safe while remaining true to the live-free-or-die spirit.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Here is the original post:
New Hampshire: The 2nd Amendment is Your Concealed Carry Permit - Breitbart News

WHEN THE Supreme Court declared in 2008 that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns, the justices were careful to assure that various gun control measures could still pass constitutional muster. For example, the court wrote that weapons that are most useful in military service M-16 rifles and the like may be banned.

Since then, appeals courts have had to sort out how that logic applies to specific state-level gun laws. The latest is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which considered a challenge to Marylands restrictions on military-style rifles often referred to as assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. The appeals court rightly found that Marylands law is perfectly reasonable and that the alternative logic dissenters favored is exceptionally dangerous.

For all of the ink the court spilled, its decision centered on a few basic principles. The rifles and magazines that Maryland restricted are military-grade, bear features that make them exceptionally deadly and are unnecessary for self-defense.

The court noted that large-capacity magazines enable shooters to inflict mass casualties while depriving victims and law enforcement officers of opportunities to escape or overwhelm the shooters while they reload their weapons. Good guys with large magazines also may fire many more shots than necessary, endangering bystanders. Military-style rifles, meanwhile, bear a combination of features that increase their lethality: They fire heavy ammunition; they bear flash suppressors that can conceal a shooters location; they can accept grenade launchers, night sights and bayonets.

Throughout, the court could point to a variety of specific examples of mass shootings, from Newtown to San Bernardino to Virginia Tech to Orlando, in which the devices Marylands law regulates were used. More children might have escaped Sandy Hook Elementary Schools classrooms, for example, if the shooter did not have a 30-round magazine. That the magazine was not even larger than that some can hold up to 100 rounds may have saved the lives of nine children who escaped as the gunman reloaded. Given the Supreme Courts plain language about M-16s, it is no stretch of logic to find that the Second Amendment does not protect owning these military-style weapons and accoutrements, or that Maryland had an interest in restricting them.

The courts dissenters argued that military-style rifles and large-capacity magazines are popular tools for self-defense and other legal activities, and as such the government has practically no latitude to restrict ownership of them or, in effect, to do much of anything else in the realm of gun control. This is illogical; an extremely lethal weapon may be popular, but that does not make it constitutionally protected. Moreover, the weapons that Maryland sought to regulate here are emphatically not defensive in nature, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III responded in a concurring opinion. If this statute is struck down, it is difficult to see what class of non-automatic firearms could ever be regulated. If these weapons are outside the legislative compass, then virtually all weapons will be.

Neither the majority on the 4th Circuit nor a reasonable reading of the Constitution demands that extreme result.

Visit link:
Logic wins out on a Maryland gun law - Washington Post

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

4th Circuit Rules Common Rifles not Protected by Second Amendment AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Arizona -(Ammoland.com)-On 21 February, 2017, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that common semi-automatic rifles are not protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The ban includes semi-automatic rifles that can take detachable ...

More:
4th Circuit Rules Common Rifles not Protected by Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News